Universal healthcare systems in developed democracies and America

Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care for America:

How a Socialist Model Can Work in a Democratic Country

The possibility of a universal health care system in the United States seems distant at times. Yet as more and more youths graduate college, and as more and more adults lose positions they have held for decades, one finds oneself wishing that the United States would at least secure this basic right for such individuals, many of whom have few prospects for immediate hire and remain without health insurance coverage. The political situation often does not match social reality, especially with respect to universal health care.

Though President Obama has taken measures to ensure that the health care system is at least reformed a little, the path to a future vote for universal health care remains long and arduous. Sadly, few can envision a socialist model of healthcare working in America, and content themselves with whatever reforms necessary to keep all insured by insurance mandate, which requires individuals to pay for insurance, and which is certainly not the socialist model for which one would hope. Though some may wish to see such a health care system implemented in the United States, many fear it impossible. [1: "Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit." (2010). True Cost. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date / > .]

Socialized health care does not have to be the demon and the bureaucratic mess it is made out to be by the media, however. In fact, most of the developed world has socialized health care, and one cannot help but wonder what other countries have done differently and how their social health care systems can run so efficiently. Out of the thirty-three developed countries in our world, thirty-two have universal healthcare. Among these are economic giants, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. This research will therefore aim to explain just how the healthcare system works in these countries by defining various terms related to these issues, and will also entertain the possibility of such a system and what it would mean for the United States, if implemented. [2: "Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit." (2010). True Cost. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date / > .]

An Alternative to the Current System

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation statistics on health care, around 17% of individuals living in America were uninsured in 2009. Clearly, due to this statistic, the United States is nowhere near achieving a socialized system yet. To add to this statistic, one can note that around 49% of Americans obtain health insurance through their employer. This is fine, of course, as long as one is employed. But what happens when one does not have a job due to various economic circumstances or health related issues? What happens in this case, unfortunately, is that one remains uninsured. [7: "Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009."(2010). Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved July 4, 2011 < http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=477> .]

While these statistics are quite disappionting, one must note that here are many health care systems that can lead to a better functioning society. This does not mean that American must become a socialist society; it simply means that this country, in its current situation is in need of some other system as that presented above, which is outdated and no longer mirrors the circumstances in this country. There are three ways in which health care could work under a nationalized system, and these ways are implemented in various developed countries in the world. The first way is through the single payer system. This implies that the government provides insurance for all citizens and pays all expenses. Providers in this system can be private or public or both. Of course, in order to sustain the single payer, individuals must contribute through taxes. [8: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

The second way is the two-tier system, in which the government provides only minimum insurance, but allows purchases of additional insurance for a service whenever desired. The third and last way, and one which the United States wants to adopt is the Insurance mandate, in which the government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance from various insurers, whether public or private. However, one benefit to this system is that insurers cannot reject a patient. [9: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Given these various ways of amending the system to ensure universal health care for all, it is quite disappointing that the United States government has never taken steps to do so and it truly shows the power that the private sector has over this business. This is especially ironic because the United States government is providing universal health care for other countries in the world, namely Afghanistan and Iraq, which are receiving health care due to United States war funding. In other words, this country cannot provide for its citizens, but has no problem providing for strangers across the world who are also helped by non-governmental organizations. [10: Glow, J. "What countries have universal health care?" (2007). AOL. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

To further cement the necessity for universal health care in the United States, one only needs to look at some statistics. According to the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care, there are a few important reasons why one must acknowledge this necessity, and it provides these quite effectively as a list of myth vs. fact. The first myth is that the United States has the best health care system in the world. The Coalition refutes this fact by stating that the country ranks quite low in infant mortality, life expectancy for women and men, and also various diseases, and shows that the statistics for all of these different aspects have shown a decline with regards to United States health care effectiveness. This, of course, could be attributed to the fact that this 'effectiveness' actually means that many people cannot even be treated due to the fact that they simply do not have coverage. The conclusion to this is that, according to the coalition, "the United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation." [11: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Another myth that the Coalition debunks is that universal health care would be too expensive. To combat this, it offers various facts. The first is that the United States reportedly spends 40% more per capita on health care "than any other industrialized country with universal health care." The second fact is that, according to the coalition, federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting o [12: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits." The third fact relates to the issue that single payer universal health care would also save billions of dollars yearly. [13: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Further facts that the Coalition shows state that universal health care would allow for more doctor visits, would allow poor people to receive proper care comparable to wealthier citizens, and would not undercut patient confidentiality as the current system does. To add to the validity of the issue, the Coalition rightly points out,

"...For profit, managed care cannot solve the United States health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition, managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks." [14: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

The case for a universal health care system, with health care access to all, is not a necessarily socialized system, and does not compromise American values and ideals. Clearly, the system as it stand now is flawed, and cannot truly provide this country with the things necessary for it, and the things which it needs to remedy this increasing problem. It is possible for the United States to achieve this system, and it has taken steps to do so by implementing the first steps of a health mandate, which can lead to such a universalized system, and eventually to health care for all. The fight here should not be about ideology, but rather should be about providing all with equal rights, and equal access.

Solutions: What Has Been Done

President Obama has done many things in order to enable the country to progress with this issue, and many of these things have been tried before without fruit. For this reason, the current President must be respected and revered. The White House Website provides citizens with information and news up to the minute on what can has been done to further these efforts. The most recent news is the ongoing debate with respect to the Affordable Care Act, and "the millions of Americans and small businesses benefitting from it [when it] scored another victory when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is constitutional." The Judges considering this case further stated, [15: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .] [16: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

"...far from regulating inactivity, the minimum coverage provision regulates individuals who are, in the aggregate, active in the health care market…The vast majority of individuals are active in the market for health care delivery because of two unique characteristics of this market: (1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay. Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one's health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care." [17: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

This is, indeed, quite a clear statement and a clear victory in a long line of successes since the beginning of the crusade by the current administration.

The passage of the health care bill securing such rights began in 2010, when the House "Democrats approved a far-reaching overhaul of the nation's health system on Sunday. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders held a news conference after Sunday's vote, which was marked by unanimous Republican opposition," according to the New York Times. To mark just how momentous this occasion was, congressmen even passed around their own draft bill to collect autographs, which signaled the importance of this event. [18: "A House Divided over the Health Bill's Passage." (2010). New York Times, Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

In this fight, the reconciliation bill was of utmost importance. It mandated that by 2014 every American should have a minimum level of health insurance or else pay a penalty. However, the reconciliation bill proposed to revise penalties in order to make it so that everyone can handle the new system. Due to this reason, for some years, the bill would exempt households with incomes below the tax filing threshold. This is vital in the fight for universal health care and of socialized health care due to the fact that people must feel comfortable with the system. [19: "Proposed Changes in the Final Health Care Bill." (2010). New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/19/us/politics/20100319-health-care-reconciliation.html?ref=policy>.]

Solutions: What Can Still Be Done

The Coalition mentioned in the sections above has recommended various things that individuals could also do in order to enable the search for solutions to provide health care for all people. The next step American should take is to work to pass a single payer, universal health care bill or referendum at the state level. The next recommended step is to contact the Physicians for a National Health Program and offer support for a bill bringing an idealistic health care system into reality. As an American citizen these steps already show great proof of a democratic nation, and further step that to cement one's support would be to create a coalition that would enable people to work together and support such work by starting small and reaching the highest level, including raising money from fundraisers and developing media access or other public statements. [20: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Conclusions

The health care debates should not focus around political ideologies or other political issues. Instead, our nation's leaders ought to realize that obtaining medical services should not be privilege and this is exactly what private corporations have made it now. Instead, this should be a right, that each American can have, and each American should exercise his or her democratic right and be able to bring this to fruition by campaigning for it alongside other supports. This paper has given a history of the health care system in the United States, and has provided alternatives and possibilities of implementing these alternatives in order to make this country a better place for all.

A universal, even socialized health care system in the United States should not mean that this country is compromising any of its values; instead it should make note of the fact that such a system, tailored to fit this country as mentioned above, would enable all to have a better way of life and perhaps an even longer life. In order to attain this we must fight as Americans for a basic right. Such statements as "Nearly 50 million Americans are currently without health insurance, and many with insurance are still struggling to pay their medical bills" or "The United States spends an estimated $2 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country" should not be statements that we can utter. This country is great, and has been able to reform everything in its history, and health care should be no different. [21: "Should the U.S. have Universal Health Care?"(2011). Opposing Views. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-have-universal-healthcare >.] [22: Johnson, T. "Health Care Costs and U.S. Competitiveness." (2010). CFR.org. Retrieved June 4, 2011, < http://www.cfr.org/health-science-and-technology/healthcare-costs-us-competitiveness/p13325 >.]